Observations on US CVD Prevention Guidelines. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD ScM FACC FAHA

Transcription

1 Observations on US CVD Prevention Guidelines Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD ScM FACC FAHA

2 What are Guidelines?

3

4 Evidence Base for Guidelines Tricoci, JAMA 2009

5 Evidence Base for Guidelines Tricoci, JAMA 2009

6 Published 2011

7 From 2011 IOM Report: Making Guidelines Better To be trustworthy, guidelines should: Be based on a systematic review of the existing evidence; Be developed by a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts and representatives from key affected groups; Consider important patient subgroups and patient preferences, as appropriate; Be based on an explicit and transparent process that minimizes distortions, biases, and conflicts of interest; Provide a clear explanation of the logical relationships between alternative care options and health outcomes, and Provide ratings of both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations; and Be reconsidered and revised as appropriate when important new evidence warrants modifications of recommendations.

8 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, American Pharmacists Association, American Society for Preventive Cardiology, Association of Black Cardiologists, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease

9 NHLBI Charge to the Expert Panel Evaluate higher quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for cholesterol-lowering drug therapy to reduce ASCVD risk Use Critical Questions (CQs) to create the evidence search from which the guideline is developed Cholesterol Panel: 3 CQs Risk Assessment Work Group: 2 CQs Lifestyle Management Work Group: 3 CQs RCTs and systematic reviews/meta-analyses of RCTs independently assessed as fair-to-good quality Develop recommendations based on RCT evidence Less expert opinion than in prior guidelines

10 Systematic Review Process The Expert Panel constructed CQs relevant to clinical practice. The Expert Panel identified (a priori) inclusion/exclusion (I/E) criteria for each CQ. An independent contractor developed a literature search strategy, based on I/E criteria, for each CQ. An independent contractor executed a systematic electronic search of the published literature from relevant bibliographic databases for each CQ. The date for the overall literature search was from January 1, 1995 through December 1, However, RCTs with the ASCVD outcomes of MI, stroke and cardiovascular death published after that date were eligible for consideration until July 2013.

11 Classification of Recommendations and Levels of Evidence A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective. *Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/ efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.

12 Guideline Scope Focus on treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce ASCVD risk in adults Emphasize adherence to a heart healthy lifestyle See Lifestyle Management Guideline Identify individuals most likely to benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy 4 statin benefit groups Identify safety issues

13 4 Evidence-Based Statin Clinical ASCVD Benefit Groups LDL C >190 mg/dl without secondary cause Primary prevention/diabetes: Age years, LDL C mg/dl Primary prevention/no Diabetes: Age years, LDL C mg/dl, ASCVD risk 7.5%* * Requires risk discussion with clinician before statin prescription. Statin therapy may be considered if risk decision is uncertain after use of ASCVD risk calculator.

14 New Perspective on LDL C & Non-HDL C Goals Lack of RCT evidence to support titration of drug therapy to specific LDL C and/or non-hdl C goals Strong evidence that appropriate intensity of statin therapy should be used to reduce ASCVD risk in those most likely to benefit Quantitative comparison of statin benefits with statin risk Nonstatin therapies did not provide ASCVD risk reduction benefits or safety profiles comparable to statin therapy

15 Why Not Continue to Treat to Target? Major difficulties: 1. Current RCT data do not indicate what the target should be 2. Unknown magnitude of additional ASCVD risk reduction with one target compared to another 3. Unknown rate of additional adverse effects from multidrug therapy used to achieve a specific goal 4. Therefore, unknown net benefit from treat-totarget approach

16 CTT 2012 RRR Similar; Absolute Risk Rules LDL-C reduction

17 Primary Prevention Global Risk Assessment To estimate 10-year ASCVD risk New Pooled Cohort Risk Equations White and black men and women More accurately identifies higher risk individuals for statin therapy Focuses statin therapy on those most likely to benefit You may wish to avoid initiating statin therapy in highrisk groups found not to benefit (higher grades of heart failure and hemodialysis)

18 Primary Prevention Statin Therapy Thresholds for initiating statin therapy derived from RCTs (not from calculator) Before initiating statin therapy, clinicians and patients engage in a discussion of the potential for ASCVD risk reduction benefits, potential for adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences

19 Primary Prevention Initiating Statin Therapy *Fasting lipid panel preferred. In a nonfasting individual, a nonfasting non-hdl C >220 mg/dl may indicate genetic hypercholesterolemia that requires further evaluation or a secondary etiology. If nonfasting triglycerides are >500 mg/dl, a fasting lipid panel is required.

20 Primary Prevention Initiating Statin Therapy (con t) The Pooled Cohort Equations can be used to estimate 10-year ASCVD risk in individuals with and without diabetes. A downloadable spreadsheet enabling estimation of 10-year and lifetime risk for ASCVD and a web-based calculator are available at ator and These factors may include primary LDL C >160 mg/dl or other evidence of genetic hyperlipidemias, family history of premature ASCVD with onset <55 years of age in a first degree male relative or <65 years of age in a first degree female relative, sensitivity-creactive protein >2 mg/l 300 Agatston units or 75 percentile for age, sex, and ethnicity (For additional information, see ABI <0.9, or lifetime risk of ASCVD. Additional factors that may aid in individual risk assessment may be identified in the future. 1) Potential ASCVD risk reduction benefits (e.g., absolute risk reduction from moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy can be approximated by using the estimated 10-year ASCVD risk and the relative risk reduction of ~30% for moderate-intensity statin or ~45% for high-intensity statin therapy. 2) Potential adverse effects. The excess risk of diabetes is the main consideration in ~0.1 excess case per 100 individuals treated with a moderate-intensity statin for 1 year and ~0.3 excess cases per 100 individuals treated with a high-intensity statin treated patients for 1 year. Note: a case of diabetes is not considered equivalent to a fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke. Both statin-treated and placebo-treated participants experienced the same rate of muscle symptoms. The actual rate of statin-related muscle symptoms in the clinical population is unclear. Muscle symptoms attributed to statin should be evaluated in Table 8, Safety Rec 8.

21 Individuals Not in a Statin Benefit Group In those not clearly in a statin benefit group, additional factors may inform treatment decisionmaking: Family history of premature ASCVD Elevated lifetime risk of ASCVD LDL C 160 mg/dl hs-crp 2.0 mg/l Subclinical atherosclerosis CAC score 300/75%ile or ABI<0.9 Discussion of potential for ASCVD risk reduction benefit, potential for adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences

22 Monitoring & Safety Measure LDL-C on therapy to assess adherence, need for further lifestyle modification, potential need for additional therapy in high-risk patients Safety RCTs & meta-analyses of RCTs used to identify important safety considerations Allow estimation of net benefit from statin therapy o ASCVD risk reduction versus adverse effects Expert guidance on management of statin-associated adverse effects, including muscle symptoms

23 Three Principles Do not focus on LDL cholesterol levels as drug therapy goals Use proven medications to reduce ASCVD risk Individualize after that Make decisions on drug treatment in primary prevention based on the patient Risk discussion with patient is required Assessment of absolute benefits and harms

24 JBS3 and ACC/AHA Systematic reviews on critical questions Very similar identification of evidence base in terms of process and outcomes Similar approaches to risk assessment 10-year and lifetime risk estimation QRISK2 vs Pooled Cohort Equations Traditional RF inputs, slightly different endpoints Do not recommend routine screening with novel markers, but perhps in some subgroups

25 JBS3 and ACC/AHA Similar approaches to risk communicaition and treatment Starts with risk tool and a risk/benefit discussion about intensity of prevention efforts Similar RRR means select patients based on higher absolute risk Broader base for pharmacotherapy Increased sensitivity and lower specificity given marked efficacy and benign low-cost drug (statins) Statins >>> other classes

26 JBS3 and ACC/AHA Consideration of statins for those with 10- year risk >10% (JBS) or 7.5% (ACC/AHA) Nearly identical thresholds considering difference in endpoints of interest ACC/AHA focuses on statin intensity JBS focuses on 2 doses of atorvastatin based on C-E analysis

27 JBS3 and ACC/AHA In conclusion, the new British and American guidelines have much in common. This should come as no surprise since they are both based on the same scientific foundation. The fact that totally different committees, in different societies, working separately and independently came to nearly identical conclusions and recommendations suggests to me that bias did not greatly play a role in either s conclusions. It is, as we would hope, that the science drives the outcome of clinical practice guidelines. Greenland, Heart, In press